Impact of an Optional Experiential Learning Opportunity on Student Engagement and Performance in Undergraduate Nutrition Courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the impact of an optional experiential learning activity (ELA) on student engagement and performance in 2 undergraduate nutrition courses. The ELA involved completion of a 3-day food record, research lab tour, body composition assessment, and reflective take-home assignment. Of the 808 students in the 2 courses (1 first-year and 1 second-year course), 172 (21%) participated. Engagement was assessed by the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE), and performance was assessed by percentile rank on midterm and final exams. Students' perceived learning was assessed using a satisfaction survey. Paired-samples t tests examined change in CLASSE scores and percentile rank from baseline to follow-up. Frequencies and thematic analysis were used to examine responses to Likert scale and open-ended questions on the satisfaction survey, respectively. There was an 11%-22% increase (P < 0.05) in the 3 dimensions of student engagement and a greater increase in percentile rank between the midterm and final exams among participants (7.63 ± 21.9) versus nonparticipants (-1.80 ± 22.4, P < 0.001). The majority of participants indicated the ELA enhanced their interest and learning in both their personal health and the course. Findings suggest ELAs related to personal health may improve interest, engagement, and performance among undergraduate students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".